Thank you for the question, Mr. Poilievre.
The first thing I would like to highlight is the premise of your question, in which you say that we are not talking about setting good against bad in a dichotomous or polarized way. That is not the intention of the bill. That's the first thing I wanted to say.
You also say that a bankruptcy involves losses for everyone concerned. That is true; it is in no one's interest for a bankruptcy to occur. Ideally, what people want, whether they are employees, retirees or even the banks, is for restructuring to be possible, because it's the only positive way out. No one wants to lose.
As for the end of your comment, I can only emphasize what you said, because I completely agree with you on those two points. My bill would change absolutely nothing in terms of what suppliers can currently expect. They would maintain exactly the same priority.